hierarchical – Success Across Cultures

The glossy page of an in-flight magazine shows an ad of a woman running while clutching a sleek new mobile phone.

Several passersby turn to watch her run past.

The ad reads “Turning heads with America’s Slimmest Phone!”

Does this ad appeal to you?

Would it appeal generally to the people of your culture?

While it’s not uncommon to encounter advertisements promising to elevate a consumer’s status and leave a lasting impression on others, the role of culture in shaping the resonance of such appeals cannot be understated.

The degree to which such advertisements motivate consumers may vary depending on the cultural context.

This study set out to explore the influence of culture on the use of persuasive appeals highlighting the allure of status benefits and various other advantages.

The Study’s Hypotheses

The study’s hypotheses stem from a nuanced consideration of cultural distinctions, particularly the contrast between horizontal cultures, which value equality, and vertical cultures, which emphasize hierarchical structures.

The researchers argued that this cultural distinction offers a unique lens through which to make predictions, revealing insights not traditionally associated with broader cross-cultural differentiations between individualism and collectivism.

The delineation between vertical cultures and horizontal cultures offers a fresh perspective on the prevalence and content of advertising appeals.

The Study

Through a comprehensive content analysis encompassing 1,211 magazine advertisements across five diverse countries (Denmark, Korea, Poland, Russia, and the United States), researchers uncovered distinct patterns in ad content that underscore the significance of this cultural distinction.

In their in-depth examination, they delved into these ad content patterns and their implications.

They undertook a comparative analysis, pitting the predictions derived from the vertical/horizontal cultural distinction against those derived from the broader individualism-collectivism framework, ultimately subjecting these predictions to empirical testing.

Notably, the analysis revealed variations in the emphasis on status benefits and uniqueness benefits within advertisements, mirroring the countries’ categorization as vertical or horizontal cultures.

The Results

The study’s comprehensive analysis of magazine advertisements spanned several countries, each representing distinct cultural orientations, including VI (United States), HI (Denmark), and VC (Korea, Russia, Poland).

Researchers noted a distinct emphasis on status-related benefits within advertising appeals in countries aligned with VC cultures, which includes Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as the VI culture in the United States.

This emphasis encompassed depictions of luxury, references to prestige, impressing others, prominence, affiliations with high-status groups (e.g., ivy league graduates), endorsements by high-status individuals (e.g., celebrities), and other forms of distinction (e.g., “award-winning”).

This focus on status benefits corresponded with the cultural profiles of these countries.

Notably, in all VC societies examined, status benefits emerged as a dominant theme in advertising, often overshadowing appeals emphasizing pleasure, uniqueness, or relationships.

In stark contrast, the emphasis on pleasure appeals was preferred in the HI culture of Denmark.

Uniqueness-related appeals, which included elements of differentiation, self-expression, self-reliance, and novelty, were also more prominent in HI cultures compared to VI and VC cultures.

These appeals portrayed the product as a means of self-expression, aligning with cultural contexts emphasizing individuality, distinctiveness, and self-reliance.

Notably, although both the United States and Denmark are categorized as individualistic societies, their advertisements significantly differed in their emphasis on uniqueness and status, reflecting the nuances of their vertical and horizontal cultural values.

These patterns were not anticipated by conventional analyses based on the broader individualism-collectivism classification.

As expected, the prevalence of ads emphasizing pleasure benefits largely corresponded to the individualism-collectivism orientation of the society.

These appeals, which cater to personal hedonic goals valued in individualistic cultures, were more prevalent in individualistic societies than in collectivistic ones, with the contrast between HI and VC cultures proving particularly significant.

However, no significant differences emerged across individualistic and collectivistic cultures in regard to relationship appeals, which focused on sociability, nurturing, warmth, and belongingness.

Overall, the study found that the conventional individualism-collectivism framework falls short in predicting the prevalence of such appeals, making the horizontal/vertical cultural distinction a valuable addition to cross-cultural theory and research.

Over the past few weeks, we’ve discussed how to build the best global virtual team, the challenges of working virtually and cross-culturally, and how to best manage such a team.

One of the cross-cultural challenges discussed was differences in norms regarding organizational structures in the workplace.

Some cultures prefer a hierarchical structure with a clear chain of command. Others prefer a flat structure, which is often more collaborative.

Over the next couple of posts, we’ll discuss various organizational structures.

Knowing about these structures as a manager will help you understand how others might be accustomed to working.

Hierarchical Structure

The hierarchical structure is probably the most common organizational structure in a workplace.

It has a clear and direct chain of command, with a senior manager at the top, followed by various departmental executives, followed by supervisors/team leads, all the way down to general employees.

Those at the highest level – the CEO, for instance – have the final say in decisions.

The CEO’s decisions may, however, require approval by a board of directors.

Each structure has its pros and cons.

Hierarchical pros:

Provides clear career paths
Offers a clear chain of command, thus reducing conflict
Helps businesses streamline processes
Leaves little room for dissent from those low on the chain (which can be good or bad, depending on how you look at it)

Hierarchical cons:

May negatively impact employee morale
Can slow decision-making processes, as approval is needed
May stunt innovation and creativity, as fewer are allowed the power to make decisions

Flat Organization Structure

Small businesses and startups typically use a flat organizational structure.

They must often adjust to a stabler structure once they move past the startup stage.

As you may have guessed, this structure is much less hierarchical with fewer middle managers between the lower-level employees and top dogs.

Flat pros:

Less supervision required
More responsibility given to employees
Trust and open communication
Greater employee involvement and ease of coordination

Flat cons:

Potential for more conflict and confusion
Sometimes slows decision-making processes, as people cannot agree
May stunt specified skills or knowledge

Functional Structure

A functional structure involves departments made up of specialized work functions, each with a designated and experienced leader.

The decision-making process is generally centralized in this type of organization, with department heads reporting to upper management.

The team leads communicate with each other to coordinate, and the team members below them typically have little involvement with that process.

Functional pros:

Employees focus on specialized tasks
Each department fosters teamwork toward a joint goal
Is scalable no matter the size of the business

Functional cons:

Coordination can be lacking
Big picture context is lost on lower-level employees
Company processes and strategies can become confused

As you can see, each organizational structure strong and weak points.

The type of structure you choose should be best suited to the business you’re running.

Without a strong structure that supports your business and the type of work culture you wish to promote, you will face difficulties in productivity, coordination, communication, and overall morale.

Next week, we’ll talk about four additional workplace organizational structures.

Tag: hierarchical

Horizontal/Vertical Cultures & Advertising: Does Status, Pleasure, or Relationships Appeal to Your Culture?

Workplace Organizational Structures: The Pros & Cons of Hierarchical, Flat, and Functional Workplaces